Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to provide health
insurance for their employees. Because early treatment of high cholesterol
can prevent strokes that would otherwise occur several years later, Salcor
encourages Garnet employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to
obtain early treatment for high cholesterol. Renco employees generally remain
with Renco only for a few years, however. Therefore, Salcor lacks any
financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of
a stroke later in life.
B. People often obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.
C. Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco.
D. Renco and Garnet have approximately the same number of employees.
E. Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet
employees.
答案(C)
G和R公司都有在S公司幫員工保了保險。
而因為早期治療膽固醇可以預防S的發病，
所以保險公司有鼓勵G公司的員工去檢測膽固醇，並且得到早期的治療，
但是R公司的只是短期員工，因此Ｓ保險公司缺少financial incentive去給於R公司
員工類似的encourage.
我有二個問題~
1.原文中說R員工是短期所以就沒有誘因去鼓勵他們去做健檢，是因為他們很容易就離職
，流動率大，所以沒必要做健檢的意思嗎？
2答案(C)，為什麼R的短期員工到了G公司就可以削弱？答案和題幹中間的邏輯連結是如何
啊？
新題目~都找不到相關討論 >"<
謝謝回答囉!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 60.251.224.183